US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Conservative · Feb 15, 2012

randel said:
'Stop playing your silly ass game and think for a change.'..............i agree, you con, should absolutely quit playing your silly ass game, and think for a change.

Right, randel, the 3.8 PLUS trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2013 is a cut in spending to you just like the 1.8% GDP growth in 2011 is more than the 3.6% GDP growth in 2010 indicating an improving economy. You need to stick to what you do best, cheerlead and leave the discussions and reality to the big "boys."

randel · Feb 15, 2012

Conservative said:
Right, randel, the 3.8 PLUS trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2013 is a cut in spending to you just like the 1.8% GDP growth in 2011 is more than the 3.6% GDP growth in 2010 indicating an improving economy. You need to stick to what you do best, cheerlead and leave the discussions and reality to the big "boys."

if you consider yourself to be one of the 'big boys', then, sorry papaw, i'll stick around and continue to help educate you...'bout nap time for ya , aint it?

Fletch · Feb 15, 2012

treedancer said:
What’s not to like about the budget sent to Congress? $4 trillion in deficit savings over the next ten years, cuts in the budget, wars winding down.Damn…your hard to please; one side of you mouth says one thing while the other sides saying something else.

What are those $4 trillion in savings? If the dont happen this congress, then they dont happen. But I am sure you know that.

Donc · Feb 15, 2012

Fletch said:
What are those $4 trillion in savings? If the dont happen this congress, then they dont happen. But I am sure you know that.

According to the President;

< First, this Budget implements the tight discretionary spending caps that I signed into law in the
Budget Control Act of 2011. These caps will generate approximately $1 trillion in deficit reduction over
the next decade. Building on reductions we already have made, this will result in a cut in discretionary
spending of $42 billion since 2010 when higher levels of Federal spending were essential to provide
a jumpstart to the economy.>

< we are undergoing a transition in
Afghanistan so Afghans can assume more responsibility; and we have debilitated al Qaeda’s leadership,
putting that terrorist network on the path to defeat. At the same time, we have to renew our economic
strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength in the world, and that includes putting
our fiscal house in order. >

< The Department of Defense will focus modernization on emerging
threats and sustaining efforts to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest
in the capabilities we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
capabilities. >

< In the United States of America, a teacher, a nurse, or a
construction worker who earns $50,000 a year should not pay taxes at a higher rate than somebody
making $50 million. That is wrong. It is wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate
than Warren Buffett. > Time for turtle to wade in and give his stock OPINION on this part.:2wave:

< In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families
making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had
in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates.> and this part as well.:mrgreen:

< Fourth, to build on the work we have done to reduce health care costs through the Affordable
Care Act, I am proposing more than $360 billion in reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health
programs over 10 years. >

This just a synopsis, read more at the link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/message.pdf

Conservative · Feb 15, 2012

treedancer said:
According to the President;

< First, this Budget implements the tight discretionary spending caps that I signed into law in the
Budget Control Act of 2011. These caps will generate approximately $1 trillion in deficit reduction over
the next decade. Building on reductions we already have made, this will result in a cut in discretionary
spending of $42 billion since 2010 when higher levels of Federal spending were essential to provide
a jumpstart to the economy.>

< we are undergoing a transition in
Afghanistan so Afghans can assume more responsibility; and we have debilitated al Qaeda’s leadership,
putting that terrorist network on the path to defeat. At the same time, we have to renew our economic
strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength in the world, and that includes putting
our fiscal house in order. >

< The Department of Defense will focus modernization on emerging
threats and sustaining efforts to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest
in the capabilities we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
capabilities. >

< In the United States of America, a teacher, a nurse, or a
construction worker who earns $50,000 a year should not pay taxes at a higher rate than somebody
making $50 million. That is wrong. It is wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate
than Warren Buffett. > Time for turtle to wade in and give his stock OPINION on this part.:2wave:

< In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families
making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had
in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates.> and this part as well.:mrgreen:

< Fourth, to build on the work we have done to reduce health care costs through the Affordable
Care Act, I am proposing more than $360 billion in reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health
programs over 10 years. >

This just a synopsis, read more at the link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/message.pdf

So tell me how a budget of 3.8 trillion dollars which is higher than this year's spending is going to cut the deficit? Fact, it doesn't, it adds 1.3 trillion to the debt. Stop buying what you are told and get the facts instead of the liar in chief's rhetoric. All those years of claiming Bush lied and you cannot see the Obama lies. That is partisan hackery

Fletch · Feb 15, 2012

You realize Harry Reid has refused to take up this budget or any other this year, so this budget is pointless.

Donc · Feb 15, 2012

QUOTE Conservative

So tell me how a budget of 3.8 trillion dollars which is higher than this year's spending is going to cut the deficit? Fact,

Didn't even take a peek at the link did ya?:shock:

it doesn't, it adds 1.3 trillion to the debt.

Show me how ending the bush tax cuts wont shrink the debt.

Stop buying what you are told and get the facts instead of the liar in chief's rhetoric.

When you stop with the winger talking points we'll talk about it

All those years of claiming Bush lied and you cannot see the Obama lies

.

Where did i say anything about bush in the post that you quoted?

That is partisan hackery

Of course you wouldn't know anything about "hackery ".:roll:

Amigo · Feb 15, 2012

Fletch said:
You realize Harry Reid has refused to take up this budget or any other this year, so this budget is pointless.

The budget itself wouldn't reduce the debt anyway.

Fletch · Feb 15, 2012

Amigo said:
The budget itself wouldn't reduce the debt anyway.

A budget can really only cut spending for the period the budget is in effect. But since no budget is going to passed the whole thing is irrelevant anyways.

Amigo · Feb 15, 2012

Dingie Harry! :roll:

Conservative · Feb 15, 2012

treedancer said:
Didn't even take a peek at the link did ya?:shock:

Show me how ending the bush tax cuts wont shrink the debt.

When you stop with the winger talking points we'll talk about it

Where did i say anything about bush in the post that you quoted?

Of course you wouldn't know anything about "hackery ".:roll:

Keep buying the rhetoric, tree, because that is all you ever do. Facts have no place in your world. Why hasn't Harry Reid passed a budget in over three years? How will tax increases on the rich put 24 million unemployed/under employed people back to work full time? Without those millions working raising taxes on 2 million won't make a hill of beans different and most people who can think understand that.

Conservative · Feb 15, 2012

Amigo said:
The budget itself wouldn't reduce the debt anyway.

Liberals don't seem to comprehend reality, how will a 3.8+ trillion dollar budget reduce the deficit when there are so many smoke and mirrors in that budget that simply lies to the American people.

Amigo · Feb 15, 2012

Conservative said:
Liberals don't seem to comprehend reality, how will a 3.8+ trillion dollar budget reduce the deficit when there are so many smoke and mirrors in that budget that simply lies to the American people.

Well, they don't want anything to go wrong for der Führer.

Jryan · Feb 15, 2012

Conservative said:
Liberals don't seem to comprehend reality, how will a 3.8+ trillion dollar budget reduce the deficit when there are so many smoke and mirrors in that budget that simply lies to the American people.

Yup, if your reference to "people" can be substituted with "conservatives".

Amigo · Feb 15, 2012

Jryan said:
Yup, if your reference to "people" can be substituted with "conservatives".

Oh good, so your not a person. :mrgreen:

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 16, 2012

In yet another sign the economy is improving, first time unemployment benefit claims dropped this week.

Blue_State · Feb 16, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
In yet another sign the economy is improving, first time unemployment benefit claims dropped this week.

I am all for the economy improving. Before I break out the $10 bottle of champagne, I want to see these numbers improve as well as the unemployment benefit claims number:

Last week, the number of people continuing to collect jobless benefits dropped to 3,43 Mil (a 100,000 loss, that is good), but the number does not include workers who recieve extended benefits under federal programs. I wish they included these since we pay for them.

The workers under federal programs also reduced by 22,800 to 3.48 Mil. That is good too.

So far, you really can't be disappointed with those numbers.

However, the marginally attached is currently around 2.8 million. These are people who have stopped looking for work. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke pointed out that this number may be going up. That is one number that we really have a hard time maintaining, so it isn't a strong indicator.

The strongest indicator we have is workforce. How big is it. In June 2009, the labor force was at 154,730,000 people; the current number is 154,395,000. When this number goes up, Unemployment comes down, and the marginally attached goes down (it would have to be significant), then I would agree with your statement. But hey, the silver lining here is less tax payer money is going out to people who "don't have jobs."

Also, we have to wait on the Seasonally Adjusted Numbers, they are only estimates.

AdamT · Feb 16, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
In yet another sign the economy is improving, first time unemployment benefit claims dropped this week.

Today's headlines from Bloomberg:

A very said day in Conservativeville.

Amigo · Feb 16, 2012

AdamT said:
Today's headlines from Bloomberg:

A very said day in Conservativeville.

Say what you want, but the economy is not getting better, and if it does, then Obama is just doing it for re-election. Once he is re-elected, he will destroy our economy, and we'll be on our way to a one world government. Sound's crazy, but it will happen if you continue to buy what Obama says.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 16, 2012

Blue_State said:
I am all for the economy improving. Before I break out the $10 bottle of champagne, I want to see these numbers improve as well as the unemployment benefit claims number:

Last week, the number of people continuing to collect jobless benefits dropped to 3,43 Mil (a 100,000 loss, that is good), but the number does not include workers who recieve extended benefits under federal programs. I wish they included these since we pay for them.

The workers under federal programs also reduced by 22,800 to 3.48 Mil. That is good too.

So far, you really can't be disappointed with those numbers.

However, the marginally attached is currently around 2.8 million. These are people who have stopped looking for work. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke pointed out that this number may be going up. That is one number that we really have a hard time maintaining, so it isn't a strong indicator.

The strongest indicator we have is workforce. How big is it. In June 2009, the labor force was at 154,730,000 people; the current number is 154,395,000. When this number goes up, Unemployment comes down, and the marginally attached goes down (it would have to be significant), then I would agree with your statement. But hey, the silver lining here is less tax payer money is going out to people who "don't have jobs."

Also, we have to wait on the Seasonally Adjusted Numbers, they are only estimates.

To the contrary, the work force number is among the most misleading in that it includes retirees; a group that has been increasing in huge numbers since the baby boomer generation began hitting the age of retirement a few years ago.

AdamT · Feb 16, 2012

Amigo said:
Say what you want, but the economy is not getting better, and if it does, then Obama is just doing it for re-election. Once he is re-elected, he will destroy our economy, and we'll be on our way to a one world government. Sound's crazy, but it will happen if you continue to buy what Obama says.

Yeah, you have a good point [he said, furtively securing any sharp objects in view and eyeing possible exits].

Blue_State · Feb 16, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
To the contrary, the work force number is among the most misleading in that it includes retirees; a group that has been increasing in huge numbers since the baby boomer generation began hitting the age of retirement a few years ago.

Wouldn't our unemployment go down because of this? Or did the baby boomer retire and took their job with them?

Amigo · Feb 16, 2012

AdamT said:
Yeah, you have a good point [he said, furtively securing any sharp objects in view and eyeing possible exits].

Go ahead, ignore the destruction of our country. :2wave:

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 16, 2012

Blue_State said:
Wouldn't our unemployment go down because of this? Or did the baby boomer retire and took their job with them?

Of course it does. It's one of the contributing factors in the unemployment rate dropping.

Conservative · Feb 16, 2012

Amigo said:
Go ahead, ignore the destruction of our country. :2wave:

Wonder what liberals think the over 1 million discouraged workers that weren't counted last month did to the unemployment rate? Unemployment rate drops as more and more people drop out of the labor force. If Obama keeps this up it will be down to 7% and liberals will want Sainthood for Obama